When 1 equals 2, the result is a retraction
A group of psychiatric researchers in Norway has lost their 2013 paper in BMC Research Notes on the effects of antipsychotic medications on the brain after discovering that they’d botched their imaging analyses.
The article, “Does changing from a first generation antipsychotic (perphenazin) to a second generation antipsychotic (risperidone) alter brain activation and motor activity? A case report,” came from a trio of scientists at the University of Bergen and Haukeland University Hospital, also in Bergen. According to the abstract of the paper, which was published last May:
We present the case of a 53-year-old male with onset of severe mental illness in adolescence, ICD-10 diagnosed as schizophrenia of paranoid type, chronic form. We compared brain activation and motor activity in this patient during pharmacological treatment with a first-generation (perphenazin), and later switched to a second-generation (risperidone) antipsychotic drug. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activation and wrist worn actigraphy to measure motor activity. …
Our study showed that brain activation decreased in areas critical for cognitive functioning in this patient, when changing from a first to a second generation antipsychotic drug. However the mean motor activity level was unchanged, although risperidone reduced variability, particularly short-term variability from minute to minute. Compared to the results from previous studies, the present findings indicate that changing to a second-generation antipsychotic alters variability measures towards that seen in a control group, but with reduced brain activation, which was an unexpected finding.
Sometimes, however, the unexpected is unexpected for a reason. As the retraction notice states:
The authors have retracted this article as the fMRI data presented in the case report are incorrect. The activation data reported for session 1 are the activation data for session 2 and vice versa. As a result the discussion and conclusions of the case report are based on the wrong set of data and are no longer valid. The authors apologise for the error.